Gang Stalking: Psychological Targeting in a Group Setting

The average functioning individual does not have a lot to be logically paranoid about. Sure, there's the occasional whisper that you overhear and
think is about yourself. There's also the fear that someone is following you. Then there is gang stalking.

This is the ultimate form of paranoia that turns out to be a well-founded suspicion and mistrust. Gang stalking is when a group of people decide to
target an individual and attempt to control aspects of that individual’s life and monitor them 24/7. Generally, this is done without the person
actually knowing about this organized stalking group, but if a person does find out, the results and helplessness can be devastating.

According to gangstalkingworld.com, “gang stalking is experienced as a covert psychological, emotional and physical attack, that is capable of
immobilizing and destroying a target over time.”

Pretty decent article about Gang Stalking. Seems there is more community awareness happening. On sites like this there seems to be less. Ironic.

Most people don't invest time and energy into any thing or person unless it stands to benefit themselves. This is true of friendships, courses of
study, personal relationships, networks or any other area of endeavour. This being the case, the first thing I ask myself (re: reports of
gang-stalking) is who gains ?

We're told who loses. But who gains ?

Certainly, the 'mastermind' of supposed stalking-gangs might be seen to 'gain' from the destruction of the target. But what about the stalkers --
how do they gain ?

More importantly, what reward does a stalker hope to gain from an investment of potentially hundreds of hours as members of a gang whose sole
purpose is to victimise a target ?

Do the gang-stalkers derive profit from their activities ? If so, who pays them ?

Do the gang-stalkers derive personal satisfaction (i.e., reward) from attempting to destroy a target ? If so, would the reward (i.e., personal
satisfaction) compensate for hundreds of hours devoted to stalking the target ?

Somehow, I can't see the reward as equaling the expenditure (i.e., hundreds of hours invested in trailing and disrupting/disturbing the target) --
especially these days, when people seek immediate gratification

I don't know anyone, no matter how perverse, who would devote even ten hours as simply one of a gang of several whose only purpose and reward lies in
the disruption (or even destruction) of the life of another

The organisation required for such an enterprise would be immense:

* constant surveillance of target
* synchronisation of multiple stalkers
* the arranging of communication between stalkers and the leader of the stalker-gang
* frequent meetings of the stalkers in which the effectiveness (or not) of the stalking-operation would be required to be analysed, tweaked, etc.
* in-fighting between members of the stalker-gang
* possibly mutiny by several of the stalker-gang against the leader or other members of the gang
* potential reverse Stockholm syndrome effect, where one or more members of the stalker-gang might identify with the victim, after which they begin to
sabotage the stalker-operation

etc.

With most people, it's wanting the hot-dog -- finding money for the hot-dog -- paying for the hot-dog --- eating the hot-dog --- transient
satisfaction

How does this translate to an apparently rewardless long-game, such as gang-stalking ? Where is the satisfaction for the stalkers ?

We recognise that in espionage, a target might be considered worthy of the long-game -- of 24/7 surveillance. But those cases have a budget. They
are expensive. The surveillance-team expects to be paid in cold, hard currency, which they then use to pay their mortgage, their travel, their kids'
school fees, etc.

Gang-stalkers such as those suggested by the OP are not paid in currency. We're expected to believe they do it for what ... for fun ? But there IS
no fun in being merely 'one' of a stalking-gang. There's no payoff, no personal reward, in shadowing a person down one street, only to peel off to
allow the next member of the stalking-gang to follow the target down the next humdrum street, and so on.

What does the peeled-off stalker do --- once he's shadowed the target down the street ? Does he speak into a little microphone in his sleeve cuff,
saying, 'Subject now turning into Main Street. Over to you, Agent 76. Good luck and Out. See you back at base ' ?

OR, in instances where stalker-gangs allegedly move items around in the target's home ---- where's the payoff ? Is it being suggested half a
dozen of the stalker-gang hide under cars opposite the target's home, in anticipation of the target running into the street, tearing his hair in
frustration and screaming, ' I'm being targeted, I tell you ! It's true ! They've been in here while I was up at the Post Office ! And
they've moved my cat's feed-bowl seven inches to the left of where I left it ! '

Then what ? Do the members of the stalker-gang hug each other in glee, there under neighbours' cars ? Do they whisper loudly to each other, '
It's working ! Giggle, giggle. We're sending him mad ! Yee haw ! '

Then what ? Do they wriggle out from under the cars and --- dodging expertly through the streets, all bent over double --- do they meet up at the
local Scouts' Hall to plan the next stage of their attack ?

Who is paying the members of these alleged stalker-gangs through all of this ? No-one ? They're doing it for free ? So how do they live ? How do
they pay their rent and food and other living expenses ?

I need a lot more information before I could begin to believe in the existence of these stalker-gangs

And for anyone who wants to see it via a Hollywood movie I suggest
Arlington Road.

Amazon Review :

It's easy to understand why Arlington Road sat on the studio shelf for nearly a year.

No, the film isn't awful; rather, it's an extremely edgy and ultimately bleak thriller that offers no clear-cut heroes or villains. In other words,
Hollywood had no idea how to sell it.

Director Mark Pellington's underrated directorial debut, Going All the Way, suffered the same fate, essentially because the filmmaker's presentation
of suburban America often shifts dramatically within the same film.

Characters are usually miserable and bordering on meltdown, no situation is straightforward, and things usually end badly.

Arlington Road begins as an astute study of suburban paranoia.

Michael Faraday (a face-pinched Jeff Bridges, who spends most of the film on the brink of tears) is a college professor who teaches American history
courses on terrorism.

He's been a conspiracy freak since his wife, an FBI agent, was killed during a botched raid that feels like a thinly fictionalized reference to the
Waco tragedy.

After saving the life of his next-door neighbor's child, he initially befriends the family (Tim Robbins and Joan Cusack), but soon believes the
husband is a terrorist.

The first half of the film mocks Faraday: he has no real evidence and is not the most stable of protagonists.

Despite the fact that it was government paranoia that got his wife killed, Faraday repeats the same type of behavior.

Pellington shifts gears in the second half, however, and for awhile, it seems that the film has simultaneously sunk into a cheap, high-octane brand of
Hollywood entertainment and undermined its own point.

Arlington Road, though, possesses a stunning ending that's a real gut punch, one that may leave you needing a second viewing to catch all of its
smartly executed setup. --Dave McCoy

The director of the movie wanted to display an environment, of one of being surrounded on all sides, and information not getting out from the main
character, without first going to those people surrounding him, wolves hunting one man, Agent
Provocateurs, if you will.

Once you have been hunted, by wolves, men acting with an agenda, you never forget it.

I have been and they were amateurs, not successful Agent Provocateurs.

Then again, I've been studying warfare for a very long time, and I knew what science is and what a Faraday Cage is and how to negate it.

You could try but when it's dozens and dozens of different people, they'll just laugh at you.

Oh no, a bunch of crazy people laughing at you, what a horrible thought!

In Britain there's CCTV everywhere, so if somebody follows you around, the evidence would be pretty damning. Thank god we have CCTV over here.

They can't recruit everyone, so you can form a coalition against them. If they are breaking into your home or office - get cameras installed. If
they are talking about you - record the conversations and then confront them INDIVIDUALLY with the recorded message. See how they like being in the
room alone with the person they've been stalking.

And then tell them individually to go to hell, and if necessary hand over evidence to the cops showing them on video damaging your property and tell
them you're being harrassed by this person constantly. Are the rest of them going to risk becoming a criminal as well or maybe just back off.....

Job done.....

Unless you're a weak person who likes to hide under the table everytime somebody laughs at you.

Gang stalking and individual stalking have the same solutions if you only think for a moment.

*Someone reports you as a drug dealer, terrorist, pedophile, crazy. They report an incident. A community investigation is opened.

In a normal society this should go on for a few months and be over with, but in the case of Jiverly Wong, this went on for close to 20 years, and in
the lives of many others it goes on for years as well, never ending, and it’s used to harass an innocent person.

*The workplace. Someone reports a violent incident. You create a harassment complaint, they decide that you are just delusional and decide that you
might go violent. A report is filed.

I should add that based on what I have come across in the research, it seems as if workplaces and educational facilities are routinely using this as a
retaliatory method. They use it to target people who file complaints. Most workers have no idea that such lists exist.

My great-est gift was the discovery of my inner strength to be able to survive the retaliation, mobbing and harassment by the Livermore
Lab, the University of California and the Oakland police department.

I learned that more than 500 women and minorities had filed lawsuits against the University of California and had then experienced retaliation by
the University of California apparatus of mobbing by employees, alumni and law enforcement.1The lawsuits were for denial of tenure, whistleblower
retaliation and theft of intel-lectual property. These women had similar complaints about the destruction of their own lives and careers. The
information gathered by the University of California is used to takeyour life apart; to destroy all that makes you feel safe; to bankrupt, isolate and
alienate you from society and from yourself; and to attempt to make you look crazy.

Crosty and Murtagh don’t know each other. It is unlikely their worlds would ever intersect, but they have at least one thing in common. They
both are victims of an increasingly popular employer weapon against whistleblowers: the psychiatric reprisal.

Across the United States, companies have seized upon concerns about workplace violence to quash dissent. Hundreds of large corporations have hired
psychiatrists and psychologists as consultants to advise them on how to weed out “threatening” employees. They say they are only responding to a
1970 directive from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration that they maintain a “safe and secure work environment.” But by drawing
the definition of “threatening” as broadly as possible, they are giving themselves a new club to bang over the heads of workers.

This is not just happening in American workplaces either.

*Universities are also reporting people, and filing reports.

In the workplace and universities, from what I have seen quite a few outspoken females are getting targeted. Minorities, and other single individuals.
Men that are smart outspoken, and ofcourse the whistle-blowers. Many I assume who are not aware of the system that is currently in place. If this is
the case could informants be specifically targeting non informants for harassment, or using this program specifically to weed out from the
universities, and workplaces, the outspoken, radicals, whistle-blowers, non compliant?

From previous research I know that colleges and universities have been infiltrated with these types of agents, along with the normal citizen
informants. Could some be working an alternative agenda?

Spying 101: The RCMP’s Secret Activities at Canadian Universities, 1917-1997

If you attended a Canadian university in the past eighty years, it’s possible that, unbeknownst to you, Canadian security agents were surveying
you, your fellow students, and your professors for ’subversive’ tendencies and behaviour. Since the end of the First World War, members of the
RCMP have infiltrated the campuses of Canada’s universities and colleges to spy, meet informants, gather information, and on occasion, to attend
classes. Why they were there is the subject of a new book by Steve Hewitt.

A lot of the targeting starts with mobbing, harassment, the target tries to file a complaint, get’s targeted more. Maybe they say something, lash
out, or just seem angry due to the mobbing. This system is being used unfairly, just like we saw with some zero tolerance programs, that were used to
specifically target minority children.

While critics are holding their applause until they see the changes, the move is being hailed by some who say the Safe Schools Act unfairly
targets black youth and drives them into gangs.

Most of the targets seem to come from these three areas. Workplace, Educational outlets, and the community.

In Canada and the U.S. they have workplace safety and standards guidelines that are similar to what is in place in the U.K. Similar reporting systems
to what the U.K. has in place.

As we saw in the Jane Clift case, once on a list, your name pops up if you call the police, ambulance, doctors, ect. Employers, Landlords and a
variety of others are given similar information about you.

In the U.K. this marker can be something that the victim is made aware of, but in other instances they are not.

Mrs Clift added: ‘What is terrifying is that there is almost no proof required and no hearing to determine the truth of the allegation.
It could happen to anybody who gets into even the most minor disagreement with their council.’

She said that after the council acted, she sensed that everywhere she went, there was ‘whispering, collaboration, people scurrying about’.

‘One time I went to the contraceptive clinic and I felt that there were way too many people hovering about for me than should have been there,
making me feel very insecure.

‘It did serve as a reminder that everywhere I went – hospitals, GPs, libraries – anywhere at all, even if I phoned the fire service, as soon
as my name went on to that system, it flagged up ‘violent person marker, only to be seen in twos, medium risk’.’

Canada and the U.S. have similar lists, that employers, schools must report.

Most communities as shown before have networks of informants. These informant networks are working with other community programs.

“Ruling the community with an iron fist. “Savvy law enforcement types realized that under the community policing rubric, cops,
community groups, local companies, private foundations, citizen informants and federal agencies could form alliances without causing public outcry.”
Covert Action Quarterly, summer 1997.”

“You mean to tell me that it is legal for corporations from the private sector to team up with local law enforcement officials in efforts
to spy on innocent members of our society? You also mean to tell me that the synthesis of law enforcement authority and the drive of for-profit
companies operate under little to no guidelines or restrictions and it is unclear to whom they are responsible to?”

In addition to these newly formed alliances, as the ACLU has pointed out, they are openly spying on innocent members of our society.

Informants due to various police initiatives are in every community.

These networks operate and are in place, using the one handed sign language. The informants then feel empowered, they patrol the neighbourhoods, and
other areas. Since these networks are already in place, it is therefore not necessary to hire hundreds of people to follow one person, they just go
about their regular patrols, and once a target enters their place of employment, business, community, or other location, the citizens are placed on
alert.

To the target it seems as if hundreds of people have been hired to follow just them, but the reality is, this informant network is and has been in
place, and once you are on the radar, they just shift attention to you.

Eg. In Stasi Germany a large part of the state was devoted to spying, if the state added one more target, they did not need to hire hundreds of
people, the network is already in place.

This can be done with phone calls, I have seen this happen, the community you are in is alerted that a pedophile, mentally disturbed person, drug
dealer is in their area. They get phone calls as you pass through the area, thus some will go stand out on the porch to be visual look out, report
back what you are doing.

The foot patrols alert the business, thus why we are followed into stores, they use the one handed sign language, maybe stay to see if there is an
incident they can make themselves useful for and report. In other cases, they are around to create an incident, and report that.

Keep in mind that the very concept of being monitored and under this kind of surveillance 24/7 is enough to make any sane person act out. Add to this
that the informants are told to circle you, sit near to you, follow you, and they don’t try to do it very subtly, a target is bound to notice.

Somewhere along the lines our societies were taken over. We helped. Without firing a bullet, or invasion, these countries have become what East
Germany and other countries were.

The gaslighting of targets is illegal. Yet in WWII we saw a government create over 500 ways to mess with Nazi sympathisers. Similar tactics were used
under VIK.

BSC invented a game called “Vik”, described as “a fascinating new pastime for lovers of democracy”. Printed booklets described up
to 500 ways of harassing and annoying Nazi sympathisers. Players of Vik were encouraged to ring up their targets at all hours of the night and hang
up. Dead rats could be put in water tanks, air could be let out of the subject’s car tyres, anonymous deliveries could be made to his house and so
on.

If they had a game that consisted of 500 ways to harass and annoy, people then, what do you think they have now. Remember this game was invented by a
UK government branch, to be used against innocent Americans.

The police, firefighters, community members are all in on it. Just like Nazi Germany, they have this false sense of community, that they are doing
something good. Yeah we got that crazy drug dealer out of town. We protected our community. In reality you drove someone like Jiverly Wong to the
point that the was capable of mass murdering lot’s of people. Yeah you, don’t you feel good about yourselves?

These programs are not all bad, back in the day, that is what you did. If a pedophile was in town, you took some community action to get rid of the
pervert, and never gave it a second thought you were protect yours, and that was that.

It’s a not in my back yard mentality. Even if you move you are still flagged, so the same thing starts again. If each area is set up like this,
which many are due to community Policing, and agenda 21, then we will see more of this in the future.

When I first started going to my American neighborhood “meetings” I was a complete novice in Soviet style bureaucracy. I was confused and
unsure about what was going on. I began by asking simple questions about the terms the leaders were using to descibe their “vision.” This opened
Pandora’s Box, literally, because much to my suprise and dismay, my Seattle government representatives did not know what their terms meant
either!

I was absolutely floored to find out somebody, somewhere had come up with this bizarre idea that a few of my neighbors should partner with the
Pentagon, the KGB and the Mossad, and together they would form neighborhood policing “task teams.” These new neighborhood committees, led by
“new” Community Policing Officers trained in communitarianism, were empowered to rewrite Seattle Municipal Code. They claimed revisions to the law
were necessary to “balance” our constitutional rights against the “health and safety” of the community. Yet, these “experts” couldn’t
tell me the definition for any of their terms, and couldn’t tell me where these new ideas had originated. It took me a year of intensive research to
find their source: Dr. Amitai Etzioni.

Though this might be still happening in some cases, the targets I come across are innocent. The lack of oversight of these programs, means that it’s
being used to destroy innocent lives. The citizen informants never give it a second thought. Many never see the dirty under handed, smoke and mirrors
used to set up targets to make them look crazy, like drug dealers, or pedophiles. They just unquestioningly believe what they are told.

I come across a lot of Woman that are single where this is being used to shut them up, rape them in other cases, and drive them to suicide or mental
institutions in other.

I hear cases of abusive ex’s that got someone targeted. If you know how the system works you can manipulate it.

I come across minorities, who feel this is being used to target them. Lot’s of minority men and women.

I also come across whistle blowers. This is being used to target them.

The staged incidents and gaslighting are illegal, but since it’s crazies, pedophiles, drug dealers, who is going to believe them? The moment you
call the cops too often, they also flag people. So it feels like you against the world literally. You know you are being harassed and followed, but
most lawyers will not help, just like when McCarthyism was happening. The ACLU will not help. These programs do have a specific degree of secrecy, but
not so that they outweigh the rule of law and justice.

Again this system is being used across the board, so I have come across people with extreme views, conspiracy views, where this was used. Anyone
outspoken, who is not following the status quo, this can be used against. Just like it was in Russia.

I think legal is the best way to go.

Use the U.K. example, find a lawyer who will confirm that there is such a list in your area, and then try to find the procedure if you are on such a
list for getting off. The woman in the U.K. spent four years, clearing her name, and that was with proof that she was on a list. Most don’t have
such proof.

Remember each area does it’s own thing, each person feels individually empowered to monitor the target the way they see fit. In many cases this
includes electronic monitoring/harassment.

Remember each area does it’s own thing, each person feels individually empowered to monitor the target the way they see fit. In many cases this
includes electronic monitoring/harassment.

In addition to that, these people try to play James Bond, and in addition to innocent citizens who are just trying to do a good job, and protect their
communities from being taken over by bad elements, you also have complete morons, and psychopaths in others cases, who are given access to innocent
individuals who in most cases have no idea what is going on.

Pushing for legislation that makes it mandatory to alert people that they are on such lists might help in some cases. This is close enough, that
legally we should be looking into this channel.

Remember the ACLU has confirmed investigations of innocent individuals are happening. In the U.K. they have exposed how the anti-terror laws are being
abused, to include full investigation of individuals.

A freedom of information request by the Lancashire Evening Post has found that applications made by Lancashire county council under Ripa
laws targeted cleaners who failed to show up for work and a care assistant who claimed too much on travel expenses. “A person in Chorley thought to
be selling counterfeit goods via eBay, people pursuing false personal injury claims, and a retailer selling furniture not up to fire safety standards
were among those investigated using powers granted under the act,” the paper reported.

In last year’s annual report, the surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, raised concerns about direct surveillance such as the bugging
of public places, taking photographs of suspects and the use of covert human intelligence such as informants and undercover agents. Of course this has
always been part of police investigation into serious crime, but it is frightening to see these tactics routinely deployed in trivial
circumstances.

His fears came to mind when I read a quote in the LEP from Jim Potts, a trading standards officer, who said: “We have simply recorded that a
member of staff has seen another member of staff do something at work, in the way that managers can and do every day.” How easily that trips from
Potts’s lips, but what of course he is unwittingly justifying is the informant society. In Staffordshire a FoI request made of the police by the
Express and Star newspaper found that terror laws were being used to monitor drug dealers, people suspected of sex crimes, burglars and thieves. In 10
cases police tracked people suspected of minor public order offences.

Many of our citizen informants that we encounter on the road, just think they are part of some great powerful network keeping dangerous people at bay.
Then there are those who know the real game, those who set up targets. Also just like Germany, you have informants who bait targets, so they can act
out. If they do it’s another marker, or jail, or a mental hospital, maybe even death. Remember the more crazy people, drug dealers, pedophiles,
terrorists, the more funding, the bigger the network.

Employees and others have been using this practice for years, to destroy lives. Woman, minorities, whistle-blowers seem to be prime targets, but
it’s not limited to them. If you read Leuren Mowet’s story, she knew 500 people, who had similar investigations opened on them, which was used to
systemically destroy their lives.

If you look at the article make a stink see a shrink you will see that psychiatric reprisals is being heavily used in democratic countries.

If you visit the site Psychologist Ethics, you will see that psychiatrists were even willing to try to have one of their own declared as crazy, just
because she blew the whistle.

MORE ABOUT POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY § ^
When one imagines using mental health professionals to target undesirable individuals, one almost always thinks of totalitarian governments such
as the former USSR, China, and Cuba. There is a long and ugly precedent of using mental health professionals in those societies to target politically
undesirable people and have them placed in mental institutions involuntarily. Human rights groups refer to this practice as “political
psychiatry.”

Victims of political psychiatry are usually people who have filed grievances or complaints against employers or officials, or are union
organizers, people who have publicly criticized officials, members of minority religions, and whistle-blowers.

But this is now happening in democratic countries.

CASES OF POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY § ^
Southern Illinois University and the American Psychological Association (APA)

A Canadian Police Department and the Canadian College of Psychologists

Lisa Blakemore-Brown and the British Psychological Society (BPS)

In this case, the psychologist made an unsubstantiated assessment of the faculty member based solely on what the faculty member’s
“enemies” had said about her. The psychologist made no effort to verify any of the rumors she had heard and instead wrote them as fact in her
reports and made recommendations based on them. As part of the counseling and conflict resolution process, the psychologist also carried on e-mail
communication with the faculty member but forwarded this communication to the university’s administration without the faculty member’s knowledge
or permission. The psychologist never told the faculty member that there would be any limits to confidentiality nor did she tell her what process she
would be following or that she would be writing reports to the administration. Obviously, if there had been any legitimacy to the psychologist’s
conclusions and report, the matter would have been handled privately and compassionately by the university’s human resources staff.

In the case of Lisa Blakemore-Brown the damage could have been far worst had not some bloggers picked up on what was happening.

Dr Rita Pal has weighed-in on the scandal of Lisa Blakemore Brown and the British Psychological Society (backstory here and here). Dr Pal has
become an expert on the bullying of individuals by professional regulatory bodies through the abuse of mental health diagnosis after she was subjected
to a campaign of intimidation by the General Medical Council [Link to court judgment]. The concerns that Dr Pal raised that led to her abuse (about
patient maltreatment in a Midlands hospital – Link) have not to this date been properly addressed. She subsequently brought proceedings against the
GMC, leading to a landmark judgment in which the GMC was described as a totalitarian regime by Judge Charles Harris – “Anybody who criticises it
is said to be prima facie mentally ill – what used to happen in Russia”.

The system is now routinely being used to destroy enemies of the state, people with views and opinions that the state does not like and the
destruction of these innocent lives are being done with the help in many cases of other unwitting citizens.

Years of research have been spent trying to expose these systemic misconducts. Others have noticed them in their areas of research, some noting that
the best and brightest are beint targeted, and still nothing gets done.

I still believe that awareness and exposure are still key, in getting what is happening exposed. I do think when targets can afford to do so they
should seek legal help, but in order to do so, they have to have an idea of what is being used against them.

These are citizen informants who thanks to our governments are under the deluded impression that they are getting dangerous people off the streets,
the reality is that they are targeting innocent people. People who are being targeted by things like the psychiatric reprisals. Whistle-blowers,
minorities, dissidents, woman that are outspoken, and everyone else.

This is the sort of thing that ATS should be all over exposing, but no.

What about just stopping and walking back towards the person following you to see what happens.

Unless they are going to show signs of physically attacking you with a weapon, I doubt any non-paranoid ordinary person would lose their mind over
somebody following them. Wouldn't stabbing somebody be counterproductive to the stalkers intentions?

So if somebody is harrassing you, and you have the evidence, are you saying the police will ignore it because you're listed somewhere for being
outspoken? That's absurd. I have no doubt that there are reprisal groups like there's private investigators, who will follow people, but this has
nothing to do with the govt. or police.

shadowing a person down one street, only to peel off to allow the next member of the stalking-gang to follow the target down the next humdrum
street, and so on.

Yeah and what about stopping and walking back towards the person following you to see what happens.

Unless they are going to show signs of physically attacking you with a weapon, I doubt any non-paranoid ordinary person would lose their mind over
somebody following them. Wouldn't stabbing somebody be counterproductive to the stalkers intentions?

John124 it's not about one or two incidents, it's about repeated incidents, day in and day out. This just like workplace mobbing can have an affect
over month or years.

The court was shown CCTV footage from cameras on the Sharpes' property, which picked up Wrobel's repeated whistling when they arrived at or left the
house.

Michael Treharne, prosecuting, said each incident taken in isolation would probably seem silly or almost pathetic.
Leopold Wrobel taunted the elderly couple with the Addams Family theme tune

Leopold Wrobel: He taunted the couple

But he added: 'If something happens on an ongoing basis and goes on and on and on, eventually it reaches the stage of being absolutely
intolerable.'

Mr Sharpe, from Wingerworth in Derbyshire, told the court Wrobel's behaviour had made his wife ill and she had started losing her hair.

'It's been devastating and it's done what he wanted to do, to try to destroy our lives,' the 68-year-old said. 'He very nearly succeeded.'

His wife told magistrates they could not leave the house without Wrobel being there.

The 66-year-old added: 'He frightens me, I've not been able to live a normal life. I was a prisoner in my own home.'

Though I think this is an extreme example, the point is the behavior, be it the harassment, is repetitive, and it's day in day out. This could affect
any sane person, and it is, because innocent, sane people are being targeted.

shadowing a person down one street, only to peel off to allow the next member of the stalking-gang to follow the target down the next humdrum
street, and so on.

Yeah and what about stopping and walking back towards the person following you to see what happens.

Unless they are going to show signs of physically attacking you with a weapon, I doubt any non-paranoid ordinary person would lose their mind over
somebody following them. Wouldn't stabbing somebody be counterproductive to the stalkers intentions?

It's much more than just following someone. They do things like leave their footprints on your porch and move things around outside your house, they
take your pricture from behind bushes in parks and they cause disruptions whereever you go to make sure you know they are there, but do it in such a
way that you think your just paranoid.

After that phase, t get's much more serious, they install suveillance in your neighbors yards or houses, hack your computer and do subtle things that
barely get your attention so that you will start to question your own sanity or you actually get scared. Their main goal is to make you go crazy,
commit suicide or commit a crime and be locked away. They want to get rid of you, but they want it ot be your fault.

The theory of stabbing them would do just that, send youto jail. Most of these people are employed by government or large corporations that have
govenment clearence & are above the law. You will never be able to prove self defense or any other charges because the tacitcs are so vague and hard
to prove.

If you go to the police, a lawyer, or FBI, like I did, once they have taken the steps to surveillance inside your hosue, they know every move you
make, so they are always a step ahead and have paid off or blackmailed your means of help. You eventiually give up and either deal with it, or you
outsmart them.

So you respond to my post with: ' Gang stalking ? What are you talking about ? '

Clue: I'm 'talking about' the title of the thread. YOUR chosen title

In YOUR opening post, you have this to say:

The average functioning individual does not have a lot to be logically paranoid about. Sure, there's the occasional whisper that you overhear
and think is about yourself. There's also the fear that someone is following you. Then there is gang stalking.

This is the ultimate form of paranoia that turns out to be a well-founded suspicion and mistrust. Gang stalking is when a group of people decide
to target an individual and attempt to control aspects of that individual’s life and monitor them 24/7. Generally, this is done without the
person actually knowing about this organized stalking group, but if a person does find out, the results and helplessness can be devastating.

According to gangstalkingworld.com, “gang stalking is experienced as a covert psychological, emotional and physical attack, that is capable of
immobilizing and destroying a target over time.”

Ok. So now we return to my questions ---- such as, WHO pays for this 24/7 targeting and monitoring (your choice of terminology, not mine)

WHO PAYS for these gang-stalkers (your words, not mine) to 'monitor and control a target 24/7' (your description, not mine) ?

Tell me who pays, please

Because NO-ONE devotes a goodly proportion of their day, their week, their nights, their LIFE, to 'stalk and monitor' a target unless SOME one
is compensating them for their time and efforts

I don't see why a group of unknown people would stalk someone everywhere when the person hasn't done anything to warrant the stalking and most times
lives alone and doesn't even do much with their life.

When police stalk/follow someone they are in a group, but they don't all appear at once.
One car will follow you to an intersection, then turn the opposite direction as you while a new car follows so that the person never realises. I
assume if anyone was going to stalk as a gang they'd follow the same sort of procedure.

I've seen some gang-stalking videos on youtube and at first I thought they were a joke.
One woman films random people on the street and wonders why they're looking at her. She even filmed a kid sitting on her fathers lap at a bus stop
and said the guy was molesting her. Both the child and the father were giving her weird worried looks, as I would too.

I find it sort of sad that people believe they are being gang-stalked, since it isn't happening and it's pretty much breaking the persons mental
state even further when people are like "oh yeah it's certainly happening, blah blah blah".

Sounds more like manipulation or pressing up someone because they don't fit the standards to the point someone else decides to take charge and do it
for them. It sounds annoying and genuinely frightening. It makes the "attacker" sound almost robotic, if the words control freak doesn't describe
them enough in a plastic sense.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.